Calcutta High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a mandamus to cancel the order dated 30-05-2020, in which Punjab National Bank (respondent bank) refused to restore the petitioner’s promotion from Scale-III to Scale-IV. Rajasekhar Mantha, J., impose exemplary and penal costs on the Punjab National Bank formerly known as United Bank of India of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- which shall be paid by the Bank to the writ petitioner within a period of three weeks from date and directed to restore to the petitioner all increments with effect from December, 2018 till date. The Court further directed all arrears to be paid to the petitioner and his salary and pay to be suitably revised by the respondent Bank within three weeks.
The Court stated that “This Court’s mind is also not therefore, fully free from doubt that the petitioner’s continuous request for reposting at Calcutta may have ruffled misplaced egoistic feathers of his superiors. This is an unfortunate malaise that festers in hierarchies of Public Sector Bank and other bodies which has and continues to severely impact the man resources and impede the growth and wellbeing of an organization and its employees. Any special request from an employee out of the ordinary, even if supported by the Bank’s rules is look at with contempt and discomfort.”
The petitioner, a Scale-III officer at United Bank of India (now Punjab National Bank), suffered a motor accident in 2015, resulting in a 70% disability as certified by the appropriate authorities. In 2016, the petitioner did not participate in a promotion process due to the likelihood of transfer but observed that two physically disabled colleagues were promoted to Scale-IV without being transferred out of Kolkata. As he was confident in a similar outcome, the petitioner participated in the 2018 promotion process and was successful, with results declared in October 2018.
Despite his disability and the need for special assistance, the petitioner was issued transfer orders to the bank’s Zonal Office in Patna. He requested reconsideration of this transfer on 08-10-2018, citing his caregiving responsibilities and health condition. The bank declined this request on 15-10-2018, without citing any pressing administrative reasons. Consequently, the petitioner joined Patna on 12-11-2018, but due to extreme discomfort and pain, he applied for sick leave from November 15 to 21st December 2018. The bank threatened coercive action if he did not report back to Patna, leading the petitioner to reiterate his request for repatriation to Kolkata or reversion to his original Scale-III position.
On 26-10-2018, the petitioner filed a complaint with the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities under the stating that the bank’s transfer policy, specifically Clauses 16 and 17, provided for exemptions and special rules for transferring disabled officers. On 06-12-2018, the Chief Commissioner directed the bank to exempt the petitioner from transfer, referring to DOPT Guidelines and Sections and of . The bank responded by accepting the petitioner’s request for reversion and posting him back to Kolkata on 29-12-2018. The petitioner rejoined in Kolkata on 01-01-2019. After making a representation on 19-03-2020, for the restoration of his promotion, the bank declined on 30-05-2020 and the writ petition was filed.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the delay in approaching the Court was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner’s health condition, and the bereavement caused by the deaths of his father, mother, and father-in-law. He contended that the delay should not bar equitable relief, especially given the bank’s inhumane conduct. He presented evidence of vacancies in the bank at Kolkata during the relevant period and detailed the bank’s transfer policy exempting disabled persons from transfer. He emphasized that the bank should adhere to its guidelines and rules regarding disabled employees, asserting that the bank’s actions ignored these policies and violated the petitioner’s rights under the 2016 Act.
Counsel for the bank opposed the petitioner’s submissions, stating that the petitioner had requested reversion before the Commissioner’s orders were received. He argued that the petitioner waived his promotion benefits by seeking reversion and could not later claim deprivation.
The Court noted that the bank’s claim of no vacancies in Kolkata was false, as several officers were transferred to Kolkata in the same period. The bank could have accommodated the petitioner in Kolkata under Clause 16(ii) of its transfer policy. The Court noted the petitioner’s substantial difficulties in Patna due to his disability, which justified his request for reversion.
The Court further criticized the bank’s inhuman conduct and violation of its transfer policy and the 2016 Act. It found that the petitioner’s continuous requests for repatriation might have offended his superiors, leading to an unjust denial of his rights. The petitioner’s delayed court filing did not nullify his case, as he acted upon the bank’s refusal and did not participate in subsequent promotional processes.
The Court remarked that “It is quite possible that the petitioner must have been suffering substantial difficulties living alone even for a brief period in Patna. He must have been compelled to seek reversion to come back to Calcutta for better care and comfort. The bank has admittedly violated its own transfer policy and the provisions of the Act of 2016 in generally morefully described and set out by the Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities. The conduct of the bank was totally inhuman, in violation of its own Transfer Policy and defeated the object and purpose of the Act of 2016.”
The Court decided not to interfere with the bank’s order refusing to restore the petitioner’s promotion after six years but imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 on Punjab National Bank for its conduct. The bank was ordered to restore the petitioner’s increments from December 2018 and revise his salary within three weeks, emphasizing the need to sensitize public sector bank officials about the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 and related policies.
[Anirban Pal v. Punjab National Bank, WPA 10195 of 2023, decided on 20-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Ms. Rupsa Sreemani, Advocates for the petitioner
Ms. Parna Roy Chowdhury Ms. Payel Ghosh Advocates for the Respondent-Bank
The post appeared first on .